rationalskepticism.org

consistency wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

consistency wrote:I am being truthful

You're telling anecdotes. You're even telling anecdotes about being truthful. The plausibility of a proposition need have no bearing on its truthfulness. Implausible propositions are downgraded from there.

What is this?
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=53391

I started this thread to see if there was others. Not to say that it is like this for everyone.

So here we see — in our own backyard, so to speak — the evolution of a strain of pseudoscience, its growth from an un-replicated experiment in the 1920s to a worldwide industry today. I’m not questioning the claims of those who have benefited from biophoton therapy, or even the efficacy of holistic medicine generally. But I’m struck here by the desire to validate the therapy with what has been described as “fringe science” (for an interesting discussion, see the talk page of the Wikipedia entry for “biophoton”). Seems to me that, in doing so, you risk crossing over from alternative or complementary medicine to the realm of straight-up quackery.